Google Chromecast Is Losing the TV Battle to Roku, Amazon

Google is doing great on handheld screens. Information technology'due south dabbling in larger screens with its smart displays, and its Chromebooks are holding their own on even bigger screens. But on the biggest screen in the house, Google's mobile-outset philosophy is failing consumers.

Opinions Google announced a new Chromecast yesterday, but you might not know that. Presenters at its Pixel 3 event in New York didn't didn't even mention Chromecast. Why? Because it'south getting brutally lapped in the media streamer market by Amazon and Roku.

Google's unabridged Telly philosophy is wrong. Most people practice not want to control their TV with their phone, it turns out. They're zoning out in front of the Television set to go abroad from the circuitous handheld experience. They desire to use an actual remote or maybe voice control. And Chromecast, insanely, yet doesn't offer a remote option or an onscreen content menu to let you browse content from a 10-foot distance.

I get that Google thought it was radically remaking TV in the image of all of the young people who watch YouTube on their phones. The youth are mobile-kickoff, and then the Tv set should be treated as an expansion of the phone. Also, browsing content involving QWERTY keyboard entry via a TV remote is always a pain.

But that lack of an on-screen menu is a glaring misstep. Amazon and Roku both provide voice control, flexible apps, on-screen menus, and traditional remotes, all at prices under $50. Apple TV also exists, although that's all I can actually say about Apple TV. Google just isn't competing.

Roku Premiere

You see that in the growing smart Idiot box marketplace, too. Android Idiot box exists. Information technology's proficient, even. But Google has been unable to spread it beyond higher-stop Sony and Sharp TVs into the mainstream where people are snapping up Insignia and TCL TVs running Roku and Amazon software. Google has also been unable to leverage its enduring partnerships with Samsung and LG to brand it into their dominant Telly lines.

The i low-price Android Television addition box is from Xiaomi. The company has a solid make in Red china but has been unable to build a brand in the United states. I went to a Xiaomi press event recently that was so monumentally clueless well-nigh how to market to US consumers, it was hard to have the company seriously at all.

TVs Matter

TVs thing. They're withal where people consume long-form video content, for hours on stop. While "traditional" Television set is on the pass up, streaming services consumed on TV are on the rise. Netflix says 70 pct of its viewing withal happens on televisions.

Mayhap Google feels less urgency in the TV space because Roku is a wild carte du jour. Roku'due south presence doesn't fit into the battle Google is waging on other fronts, where Google, Amazon, Apple tree, and Microsoft are the main players, and it may make Google'south other competition look less urgent.

Or maybe Google is just likewise far upwards its own YouTube—the most successful video service that isn't primarily consumed on TVs. YouTube makes the Television an appendage, not the star of the show, much like the Chromecast does. But there's much more to the living room than YouTube.

Google got trounce by Amazon in the smart dwelling house before, when Alexa grabbed a ton of market share before Google had its Home systems fully spun upwards. And Fire TV is looking pretty good. What we sentry on Television may exist changing, but the fact that we spotter it on TVs and desire a remote-based experience is not.

Google needs to rev the Chromecast and get information technology in line, or its lack of a good TV solution will requite Amazon and even Apple tree a leg up. If not, perhaps it should buy Roku, which understands better than Google what streaming Boob tube viewers desire.